TB9-18305

TB9-18305

On an independent assessment of the full record and assuming appellants' allegations where stated, the RAD found the Appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that they would face persecution or serious risk in Port Harcourt and that relocation there would be unreasonable; therefore a viable internal flight alternative exists and the RPD decision denying refugee protection and finding no need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA is confirmed.

Citation
TB9-18305
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by the Refugee Appeal Division Confirming the Refugee Protection Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that the Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under the IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Gender Guideline Application, Risk Assessment Under Section 97(1), New Evidence Admissibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Gender Guideline Application Risk Assessment Under Section 97(1) New Evidence Admissibility

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by the Refugee Appeal Division Confirming the Refugee Protection Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Existence and viability of an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Port Harcourt
  2. 2 Credibility of the Appellants' allegations linking threats to the Company, the Ogboni cult or police
  3. 3 Proper application of Gender Guideline to the Co-Appellant's claim

Ratio Decidendi

On an independent assessment of the full record and assuming appellants' allegations where stated, the RAD found the Appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that they would face persecution or serious risk in Port Harcourt and that relocation there would be unreasonable; therefore a viable internal flight alternative exists and the RPD decision denying refugee protection and finding no need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that the Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under the IRPA

Orders

  • Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act the Refugee Appeal Division confirms the Refugee Protection Division decision dated April 30, 2019; the appeal is dismissed.